Quoting PHX787 (Reply 1):looks like these are all US Airways Express flights. Are there plans to add more mainline out of DCA?

Considering most of the new DCA flying is being funded by cuts at LGA - which was mainly express flying - a lot of DCA will be Express, within perimeter and especially to small markets like XNA and AGS. And as Flighty said the E170/E175 is practically a mainline plane.
I really like the MSP adds. The route needs some more competition.

US is poised to make a true hub there at DCA, it will be a great connection and O/D market, they could fly just about anyplace, within perimeter, and take any flight out of perimeter they can get and make it all work, US is poised better in DCA than LGA, at least DCA is getting some exemptions to fly beyond the posted distance, while LGA is not.

Yeah i think US is in the process of a very profitable and successful hub in time. For the people that think US should have so much mainline right out of the gate remember that this is bascially a move from LGA which was mostly RJs and they want to build the market not fly a bunch of empty planes around. This is US trying to build into becoming the premier DCA hub airline. Destinations and plane types will certainly change many times over as they see how the market does. Some routes will be successes and others will fail miserably. Just like DL at LGA some flights will be total successes and others will fail miserably no ones knows yet these things take time and experimentation.

US must be getting another gate at MSP. That is the only way these DCA times will work. Under the current schedule ~ 30% of their flights have to use gates borrowed from other cariers and the DCA flights will only make it worse.

I welcome their expanded service however! This is route I will definitely use.

Quoting usflyer msp (Reply 16):US must be getting another gate at MSP. That is the only way these DCA times will work. Under the current schedule ~ 30% of their flights have to use gates borrowed from other cariers and the DCA flights will only make it worse.

US is growing a nice little presence at MSP. I was surprised at the number of flights out of here, on everything from E-jet on up to A321.

Quoting usflyer msp (Reply 16):US must be getting another gate at MSP. That is the only way these DCA times will work. Under the current schedule ~ 30% of their flights have to use gates borrowed from other cariers and the DCA flights will only make it worse.

I welcome their expanded service however! This is route I will definitely use.

May use the old DL gate; the one currently being used by ZK. Outside of them and sometimes AA, it sits unused pretty much all day.

Could the reason behind using all RJs on these new flights be in part because of gate space at DCA? For the time being, there is simply not much space for jets at the gates on Piers C and half of B. That should change some as more flying gets moved from DL to US and the gate allocation is reharmonized. I imagine a year from now, all US and UA and maybe AC flights will be on piers B and C, while all DL and AA flights are on pier A/old terminal and everyone else in the Banjo.

That would clear up some space to shift some of this flying to mainline.

Quoting D L X (Reply 27):That would clear up some space to shift some of this flying to mainline.

Most of these routes don't justify mainline and US's mainline fleet is stretched pretty thin with minimal growth on the horizon. US has plenty of RJ's freed up by the shutdown of LGA hub. There was very little mainline freed up by shutting down LGA.

I can't imagine how horrific Gate 35 at DCA will be with all these new CRJ flights. I could potentially fly the DCA-PNS route a few times a year, but not sure I want to deal with the mess around the Gate 35. I've always wished US would build a small pier to the north to accomodate the RJ ops...but it will never happen.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 28):I've always wished US would build a small pier to the north to accomodate the RJ ops...but it will never happen.

Write your congressman.

My understanding is that under federal law, DCA is only allowed to have 44 gates. Therefore, it has exactly 44. If US were allowed to build an Express building at DCA, I'm sure they would in a heartbeat.

My understanding is that under federal law, DCA is only allowed to have 44 gates. Therefore, it has exactly 44. If US were allowed to build an Express building at DCA, I'm sure they would in a heartbeat

I'm confused. Are there more slots available for more flights that could use additional gates? I didn't think so. I thought the airport was pretty much maxed out now.

Quoting SANFan (Reply 30):I'm confused. Are there more slots available for more flights that could use additional gates? I didn't think so. I thought the airport was pretty much maxed out now.

The new slots must be shoehorned into the existing gates.

THat's not much of a problem for every airline except US, which has clearly exceeded the maximum gate utilization, hence placing the RJs and props on the tarmac and bussing passengers to them. They don't do that with mainline flights though.

Wow, didn't see XNA coming. Thought PHX or PHL would have come long before DCA.

Would love to see PHX come online since geographically logical West Coast connections are limited to pretty much DFW/IAH/DEN. Probably too much to ask though, given the service already existing vs. the population base.

Quoting D L X (Reply 29):My understanding is that under federal law, DCA is only allowed to have 44 gates. Therefore, it has exactly 44. If US were allowed to build an Express building at DCA, I'm sure they would in a heartbeat.

Such a building could easily have 1 gate number, as many express ops around the country do.

But I'm uncertain where to put it.

I'm also uncertain why Terminal A still exists rather than building another pier.

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 43):Myself -- I've been boarding planes in the banjo since 1971 when NWA and TWA were there.

Trust me -- there's nothing historic about it.

Flew out of there two weeks ago with AC to YUL. You're totally right, the Banjo is noting to write home about at all. Why can't they renovate it to make it consistent with the rest of the airport which IMO is one of the most beautiful in the country?

Here are the 30 businest local city pairs from DCA in Q3 of 2011, including if US/US Express serves them. The markets noted as USUA are served by FF partner United. The number at left is local passengers per day (total to+from).

Loads and yields seem strong given the corporate travel. Seem to be growing slowly at 1.1/1.2 million pax/yr. AA and UA dominate w/DL and US three and four.

There's been consolidation in destinations, which is good business given fuel costs and other factors, but it has come at the cost of connections going west. Formerly had LAX and SLC service, but they were short-lived. Would think a solid connection to the West would be a winner since DEN is the only option right now (not counting DFW or IAH.)

Don't expect it to happen, since we're in fairly solid shape, it's just dreaming on my part. That and daily service by a LCC. G4 is great, but not if you want daily service and connecting options.

Flying US to CLT Wednesday night en route to SXM, will report back on the load. That and maybe some Maho pics.

Quoting knope2001 (Reply 45):Here are the 30 businest local city pairs from DCA in Q3 of 2011,

Hmmmmm. Thank you so much for the list knope'. I find it very interesting in my own way (which is probably quite different than the points you are trying to make.)

Are these numbers (airport-specific for the WAS area) available to the public? Since the DOT reports that I use are now into combining large multi-airport metro regions into a single number, I'm really wanting to find individual airport stat's. Any info would be appreciated. (IM me if you'd rather.) Thanks a bunch.

Quoting saab2000 (Reply 55):
Is this even remotely likely? They closed GRR a few years back. I'd love to see it (I live in GRR) but I'll believe it when I see it. They do everything as a code share now with United.

When US originally announced the slot swap, MSN and GRR were listed as destinations to be added from DCA. Now that F9 is flying both of these routes, I am not sure if they are still going to go through with it but they are definitely within the realm of possibility.

Quoting southwest737500 (Reply 56):They should add them together. TUL is not that small I know OKC is the biggest in the state but I know they can support 100 seats a day con a CRJ. I fly to XNA all the time to go to TUL

Looking at the PDEW report, only about 15 pax in each direction OKC-CLT and TUL-CLT, so maybe it's understandable that US doesn't open up the route. On the other hand, there should be adequate connecting opportunities to make it work from each one. On the other hand, I imagine that OKC-IAD and TUL-IAD steal a lot of the connection possibilities.

Also, I don't know if I'd want to sit on a ZW CR2 for 2.5 hours. I'd rather have the G7 CR7, I think. Maybe they should try it, though. Would be interesting to connect through CLT from MUC.

Quoting SANFan (Reply 51):Hmmmmm. Thank you so much for the list knope'. I find it very interesting in my own way (which is probably quite different than the points you are trying to make.)

Are these numbers (airport-specific for the WAS area) available to the public? Since the DOT reports that I use are now into combining large multi-airport metro regions into a single number, I'm really wanting to find individual airport stat's. Any info would be appreciated. (IM me if you'd rather.) Thanks a bunch.

The stats have (unhappily) been increasingly lumped together in the main table, which is #6. CLE + CAK are reported as one, PVD is combined with BOS, etc. But table 1A breaks them apart. It's where I got DC-specific stuff.

As I've pointed out before, be wary of issues from regionals which do not report. Chautauqua as F9*, for example, does not. The other thing is occasionally there's strange stuff. The Q2 2011 AirTran fare levels are clealry out of whack and who knows why. But the data is still interesting -- you just have to sometimes be careful that if something doesn't seem quite right, do some research to see if perhaps it's not.

Quoting LOWS (Reply 58):Looking at the PDEW report, only about 15 pax in each direction OKC-CLT and TUL-CLT, so maybe it's understandable that US doesn't open up the route.

Always got to be careful using that report. A lot of times if there isn't nonstop service, you aren't seeing the true O&D market on a particular route. Let's say my old hometown of TOL. If you looked at the report would you offer flights to ATL? Probably not. When FL & DL operated the route there were well over 250 people in the O&D report on that route.

OKC definitely could use some additional East Coast/Eastern US service. We are very lopsided to the west of the Mississippi. Then you could consider IAD/BWI the same market so that shrinks it even more. CLT would be a very nice addition and bring more options to those wanting to fly to that part of the country. We had all hoped they would start CLT service after the merger to pair it with PHX and LAS. Unfortunately WN ran them out of LAS and eventually out of the market completely. Of course if WN starts OKC-ATL, that could make things a bit difficult for US here.

Quoting CRJ900LR (Reply 6):Oh great even better that Air Wisconsin is flying that AGS flight. Hope they (AGS) are planning for canceled and delayed flights already. PSA should be flying this, not Air Wisconsin.

I don't know if PSA has a domicile in DCA or not, but if they don't that is a better reason why Air Wisconsin makes sense on this flight. I think USAirways has finally realized that you cannot have a regional partner operate 70 departures from a city (In the case CLT), where said regional partner does not have a crew domicile or a mx base. Because DCA is a crew domicile for Air Wisconsin and also a semi-mx base (MX is contracted to Bombardier, but they can do most of the things that other ZW mx bases can do), if a plane goes tech in DCA or has a crew issue, it is much much easier to cover that from DCA than it is out of CLT. (One of the reasons that ZW had some bad performance numbers for a long time, which have gotten a lot better recently). One of the things that US is doing with ZW as a result of the slot transaction is cutting back ZW's CLT flying by quite a bit (Which is a good thing for many reasons, and I don't want to get into the politics surrounding ZW and US as it relates to CLT), and they are going to be ramping up DCA flying and covering much of the added DCA flying.

That being said though, US is still having ZW operate way too much of the CLT flying. Some of it makes sense (MKE for example which is a ZW mx base, ORF for similar reasons), but seriously PSA needs to be operating more of the CLT flying, and ZW needs to be operating the DCA and PHL flying for the reasons I have stated.

Quoting apodino (Reply 67):but seriously PSA needs to be operating more of the CLT flying, and ZW needs to be operating the DCA and PHL flying for the reasons I have stated.

IMHO, ZW needs to be pushing to either get some E70/E75/CR9s or some Q400/ATR42/ATR72 to diversify their fleet. I think every major airline has stated they want to move away from 50 seat aircraft and that is literally ALLZW has.. and if they want to diversify themselves a la RP, they are gonna need a diverse fleet. AND they need to look at doing some at risk flying that could potentially bring more revenue in their pocket.. for every 10 aircraft at US, have 1 aircraft that does at risk flights or something similiar.. just a thought..

Now, PSA and Piedmont have no say but if they did, I would be preaching the same thing to them..

Quoting boberito6589 (Reply 35):Quoting WesternA318 (Reply 34):
Only slightly off topic, but PHL-SLC has been axed...grrr....

A casualty of increased fuel prices

Yeah, I know, I was seriously hoping to use it this summer on my annual trip to Greece, but, I'm toting a 10 year old, my finacee and my parents who are in their late 70's, so, a multistop option just isnt going to work for me this year. If it was just me my kid, and the fiancee, then, it'd be no problem. Oh well, looks like DL is getting mre $$ from me!!

I agree with you on several levels: customer choice of flights, smoothing passenger flows thru airports thru the day, greater revenue opportunities. Environmentally I dont have enough info to venture an opinion.

However, the US NE coast is the most congested airspace in the world. Arguably, all the congestions and delays in the BOS-NYC-PHL-WAS corrider is the result of huge number of CRJ's, Q400's. E145's etc.

Imagine if 12x daily Q400's on DCA-EWR or LGA were replaced with 5x daily 738's en masse at all carriers. Air space would clear, and on time performance would sky rocket.

Air space and runway capacity will usually max out before terminal capacity, so larger aircraft types should be encouraged thru landing fee schedules in this corridor.

HND-Sapporo/Osaka Itami operate with hourly 773/744 flights due the demand for seats. Quarter-hourly 738's on these rotues would clog the runways and air space. By a similar argument, perhaps flights starting and ending in the BOS-NYC-WAS corrider should be restricted to 73G/319 size and above, with a ban on E145/Q400/CRJ etc.

But everytime I fly out of EWR, and I'm stuck in a line of 25 Q400's and E145's, I think wouldn't it be nice if it was just a line up of 7 738's. I'm sure I'd be airborne sooner. Same number of passengers on fewer, larger aircraft enabling emptier runways and skies. The need for this will come one day. It will happen in NYC-WAS airports first.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 78):But everytime I fly out of EWR, and I'm stuck in a line of 25 Q400's and E145's, I think wouldn't it be nice if it was just a line up of 7 738's. I'm sure I'd be airborne sooner. Same number of passengers on fewer, larger aircraft enabling emptier runways and skies. The need for this will come one day. It will happen in NYC-WAS airports first.

You can't have a comprehensive hub without serving smaller communities with regional-type aircraft. Now, if we were to say that flights between these major hub-type airports had to be on larger equipment, it would be a little more realistic. DCA-EWR or IAD-LGA can handle mainline....EWR-PBG, not so much.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 78):
But everytime I fly out of EWR, and I'm stuck in a line of 25 Q400's and E145's, I think wouldn't it be nice if it was just a line up of 7 738's. I'm sure I'd be airborne sooner. Same number of passengers on fewer, larger aircraft enabling emptier runways and skies. The need for this will come one day. It will happen in NYC-WAS airports first.

Also flts within the Northeast routinely have horrible on-time percentages, for every airline. Because when the likes of LGA/JFK/EWR/PHL/DCA/IAD have any type of weather issue the mid to long haul flts are already in the air so they receive first priority. The 30-60 min hopper flts have departure times pushed back 1-3 hours and cause chaos with connections.

Well if BOS can get a mixture of 757, A320, 738, and 739, from EWR why can't DCA? Why does DCA get a more 'environmentally friendly' Q400?

EDIT: but getting back on topic, since UAEX is basically the only carrier on DCA-EWR, I think it might be a sound move to get US involved on the routing. They are another star carrier, it will add more choice and pricing in the market, and as a result UA will operate less of their own metal on the route. If you look at the other token US routes from EWR, note that UA basically lets US operate the bulk of the frequencies while UA operates fewer. EWR-CLT for example is something ridiculous like 10x day using A320, A321 and 734. UA only flies a daily 737 on the route as well as some ERJs. Would be nice to see something like 3x E175 or something like that.

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 82):
Well if BOS can get a mixture of 757, A320, 738, and 739, from EWR why can't DCA? Why does DCA get a more 'environmentally friendly' Q400?

It's pretty simple. UA connects a ton of pax on BOS-EWR as the location of the EWR makes it ideal for BOS passengers to connect to just about anywhere.

DCA on the other hand for just about anywhere in the US requires a back track to EWR for connections, which mean that it is not nearly as ideal for connections as a BOS-EWR flight would be. Also remember that UA has a hub over at IAD, and for most of their destinations, they can put them on an Int'l flight out of IAD or for other US destinations, connect them out of DCA in ORD or IAH. Not to mention that US is a Star Alliance partner in DCA which can get pax anywhere. As for why US doesn't fly EWR-DCA, remember that they have hourly service from DCA-LGA and most of the NYC pax are going to opt for that service. Aside from some local NJ pax who may find it easier to take Amtrak or drive, you aren't going to get that much more local pax in EWR that they can already get in LGA.